The household census of craftsman-owners and small owners gathered interesting data on their agriculture. Here are these data, arranged in the "Sketch" by subgroups:

* In the "Sketch" there is apparently a typographical error in these figures (see p. 58), which we have corrected.

Thus, the more prosperous the craftsmen are as industrialists, the more solvent they are as agriculturalists. The lower their position in production, the lower they stand as agriculturalists. The data from the craftsman census fully confirm, consequently, the opinion already expressed in the literature that the decomposition of craftsmen in industry goes hand in hand with the decomposition of the same peasants as agriculturalists (A. Volgin. Substantiation of Populism, etc. P. 211 et seq.). Since hired laborers among craftsmen stand even lower (or no higher) than craftsmen working for merchants, we are justified in concluding that there are even more ruined agriculturalists among them. The household census, as was already noted, did not touch upon hired laborers. In any case, the data presented clearly show how absurd is the assertion of the "Sketch" that "communal land-holding equally guarantees both labor-industrial independence for the owner of a craftsman-industrial establishment and his hired laborer."

The absence of detailed data on the agriculture of individual craftsmen, small and large owners, affects the data under consideration particularly sharply. To fill this gap, at least in part, we must turn to data on individual trades; sometimes information appears on the number of agricultural laborers among owners [186], but the "Sketch" provides no general summary of this information.

Here are the leather-tanners who are agriculturalists – 131 households. They have 124 hired agricultural workers; 16.9 desyatin of sowing per household and 4.6 horses; 4.1 cows (p. 71). The hired laborers (73 annual and 51 seasonal) receive 2,492 rubles in wages, i.e., 20.1 rubles per person, whereas the average wage for a worker in the leather-tanning trade is 52 rubles. Here too, consequently, we observe the phenomenon common to all capitalist countries – the lower position of workers in agriculture compared to industry. The "craftsmen"-tanners are evidently the purest type of peasant bourgeoisie, and the notorious, so much praised by Populists "combination of trade with agriculture" consists in the fact that prosperous owners of commercial-industrial establishments transfer capital from trade and industry into agriculture, paying their farm-laborers incredibly low wages [187].

Here are the craftsmen-oil-pressers. Among them, 173 are agriculturalists. Each household has 10.1 desyatin of sowing, 3.5 horses, and 3.3 cows. There are no households without horses or without cows. There are 98 hired agricultural workers (annual and seasonal) with wages of 3,438 rubles, i.e., 35.1 rubles per person. "The refuse, or oil-cakes, obtained in oil-pressing production as waste, serve as excellent fodder for livestock, thanks to which it becomes possible to conduct field fertilization on a broader scale. Thus, the trade yields the economy three-fold advantages: direct income from the trade, income from livestock, and better harvests in the fields" (164). "Agriculture is conducted by them (oil-pressers) on a broad scale, with many not content with their allotment shares but renting additional land from weaker households" (168). Data on the distribution by districts of flax and hemp sowing show "a certain connection between the magnitude of flax and hemp sowing and the distribution of the oil-pressing trade by districts of the province" (170).

Commercial-industrial enterprises appear here, consequently, as the so-called technical agricultural productions, whose development always characterizes the progress of commercial and capitalist agriculture.

Here are the miller-owners. The majority of them are agriculturalists: 385 out of 421. Per household there are 11.0 desyatin of sowing, 3.0 horses, and 3.5 cows. There are 307 hired agricultural workers with wages of 6,211 rubles. Similar to oil-pressing, "grain-milling production serves for mill owners as an instrument for the market sale of their own household products in the form most advantageous for them" (178).

It seems these examples suffice to show how absurd it is to understand "craftsman-agriculturalist" as something homogeneous, uniform with itself. All the agriculturalists cited are representatives of small bourgeois agriculture, and to combine such types with the rest of the peasantry, including ruined households, means obscuring the most characteristic features of reality.

In concluding the description of the oil-pressing trade, the compilers attempt to argue against the "capitalist doctrine" declaring the stratification of peasants to be the evolution of capitalism. Such a position supposedly rests on "a completely arbitrary assertion that the indicated stratification is a fact of recent times and represents an obvious sign of rapid growth of capitalist régime de facto [188] in the peasant environment, despite the existence of communal land-holding de jure [189]" (176). The compilers argue that the commune never excluded and does not exclude property stratifications, but it "does not entrench them, does not create classes"; "these transitory stratifications did not sharpen with the passage of time but, on the contrary, gradually smoothed out" (177). Naturally, such an assertion, in proof of which artels are cited (on them below, § VII), family divisions (sic!) and land repartitions (!), can only provoke a smile. To call "arbitrary" the proposition regarding the growth and increase of peasant differentiation means ignoring universally known facts of mass peasant dehorseization and land abandonment along with facts of "technical progress in peasant economy" (cf. "Progressive Trends in Peasant Economy" by Mr. V. V.), the development of allotment leasing and pledging alongside growing land rental, the increase in the number of commercial-industrial enterprises alongside the increase in migrant laborers, these vagrant hired workers, and so forth and so on.

The household census of craftsmen should have provided rich material on the extremely interesting question of the relationship between the incomes and wages of craftsmen-agriculturalists and the incomes of craftsmen-non-agriculturalists. All such data are present in the tables, but no summary is given in the "Sketch," so we had to undertake this summary ourselves from the data in the book. Such a summary was based, first, on the summaries in the "Sketch" for individual trades. We only had to add together data on different trades. But this summary is given in tabular form not for all trades. Sometimes it turned out that errors or typographical mistakes had crept in – a natural result of the absence of check totals. Second, the summary was based on extracting numerical data from descriptions of certain trades. Third, in the absence of both sources, we had to turn directly to the tables (for example, for the last trade: "extraction of minerals"). Naturally, such heterogeneity of material in our summary could not but lead to errors and inaccuracies. We believe, however, that although the general totals of our summary could not coincide with the table totals, nevertheless the conclusions from the summary can fully serve the purpose, since the average values and ratios (which we use exclusively for our conclusions) would change upon any correction only very insignificantly. For example, according to the table totals in the "Sketch," the size of gross income per 1 worker equals 134.8 rubles, whereas according to our summary – 133.3 rubles. Net income per 1 family worker 69.0 and 68.0 rubles. Wages of 1 hired worker 48.7 and 48.6 rubles.

Here are the results of this summary, determining the magnitude of gross income, net income, and wages of hired workers by groups and subgroups.

Here are the main results of this table:

1) The non-agricultural industrial population takes an incomparably greater part in the trade (compared with its numerical size) than the agricultural. There are twice as many hired non-agriculturalists as agriculturalists by number of workers. Yet in gross production they constitute almost half, yielding 1,276,772 rubles out of 2,655,007, i.e., 48.1%. By income from production, i.e., by the size of net income of owners plus wages of hired workers, non-agriculturalists even prevail over agriculturalists, yielding 647,666 rubles out of 1,260,335, i.e., 51.4%. It turns out, consequently, that being in a minority by number, non-agricultural industrialists do not yield to agriculturalists in the magnitude of production. This fact is extremely important for evaluating the traditional Populist teaching on agriculture as the "main foundation" of so-called craftsman industry.

From this fact naturally follow other conclusions:

2) The gross production of non-agriculturalists (gross income), calculated per 1 worker, is significantly higher than that of agriculturalists: 192.2 rubles against 103.8, i.e., almost twice as much. As we shall see below, the working period of non-agriculturalists is longer than that of agriculturalists, but this difference is far from as great, so that the greater productivity of labor among non-agriculturalists cannot be questioned. This difference is least of all in the 3rd subgroup, among craftsmen working for merchants, which is entirely natural.

3) The net income of owners and small owners among non-agriculturalists is more than twice higher than among agriculturalists: 113.0 rubles against 47.1 rubles (almost 2½ times). This distinction runs through all subgroups, but is highest in the 1st subgroup, among craftsmen working for free sale. It goes without saying that this difference is all the less explainable by the difference in working periods. It cannot be questioned that this difference depends on the fact that connection with the land lowers the income of industrialists; the market factors in the income of craftsmen from agriculture, and agriculturalists are forced to be content with lower wages. To this are added, probably, greater losses in sales among agriculturalists, greater expenses in purchasing materials, and greater dependence on merchants. The fact in any case is that connection with the land lowers the craftsman's wages. There is nothing for us to elaborate on the tremendous significance of this fact, which clarifies the true significance of "the power of the land" in contemporary society. It is worth recalling what tremendous importance the low size of wages has in maintaining bondage and primitive production methods, in delaying the use of machines, in lowering the living standard of workers [190].

4) The wages of hired workers are also everywhere higher among non-agriculturalists than among agriculturalists, but this difference is far from as great as in the income of owners. Overall across all three subgroups, a hired worker under an agriculturalist-owner earns 43.0 rubles, while under a non-agriculturalist – 57.8 rubles, i.e., 1/3 more. This difference may to a significant degree (though not entirely) depend on differences in the working period. As for the relationship of this difference to connection with the land, we cannot judge, since we lack data on hired agricultural and non-agricultural workers. Besides the influence of the working period, there naturally shows itself here too the influence of different levels of needs.

5) The difference between the magnitude of income of owners and wages of hired workers is incomparably greater among non-agriculturalists than among agriculturalists: across all three subgroups, among non-agriculturalists the owner's income is almost twice the wage-earner's wage (113 rubles against 57.8), whereas among agriculturalists the owner's income exceeds that by an insignificant sum – 4.1 rubles (47.1 and 43.0)! If these figures are striking, it is even more necessary to say this of artisans-agriculturalists (I, 2), among whom the owners' income is lower than the wages of hired workers! However, this phenomenon will become completely clear when we present below data on the enormous differences in income magnitude in large and small establishments. By raising labor productivity, large establishments make it possible to pay hired wages exceeding the income of the poor – individual craftsmen, whose "independence" proves, under subjection to the market, to be completely fictitious. This enormous difference between incomes of large and small establishments manifests itself in both groups, but is much stronger among agriculturalists (due to the greater depression of small craftsmen). The negligible difference between the small-owner's income and the hired worker's wage clearly shows that the income of a small craftsman-agriculturist, not employing workers, is no higher, and often lower than the wages of a hired worker. Indeed, the magnitude of net owner income (47.1 rubles per 1 family worker) is an average magnitude for all establishments, large and small, for factory owners and individual craftsmen. It is understandable that for large owners the difference between net owner incomes and hired worker wages constitutes not 4 rubles but 10–100 times more, and this means that the income of a small craftsman, an individual, is significantly below 47 rubles, i.e., this income is no higher, and often lower than the wages of a hired worker. The data from the craftsman census on the distribution of establishments by net profitability (see below, § V) fully confirm this apparently paradoxical conclusion. But these data concern all establishments in general, without distinguishing agriculturalists and non-agriculturalists, and this is precisely why the given result of the above table is especially important for us: we have learned that the lowest wages belong precisely to agriculturalists, that "connection with the land" tremendously lowers wages.

In speaking of the difference in incomes between agriculturalists and non-agriculturalists, we have already mentioned that it cannot be explained by the difference in working periods. Let us look at the data from the craftsman census on this question. The census program, as we learned from the "Introduction," included investigation of "the intensity of production throughout the year, on the basis of the number of family workers and hired workers engaged in production by months" (p. 14). Since the census was household-based, i.e., each establishment was investigated separately (unfortunately, the form of the household schedule is not attached to the "Sketch"), it must be assumed that for each establishment data were collected on the number of workers by months or on the duration of working months in the year for each establishment. These data are compiled in the "Sketch" into one table (p. 57, 58), in which for each subgroup of both groups is indicated the number of workers (family and hired together) engaged in each month of the year.

The attempt by the craftsman census of 1894/95 to determine with such precision the number of working months among craftsmen is extremely instructive and interesting. Indeed, without such information, the data on incomes and wages would be incomplete, and statistical calculations would be only approximate. But, unfortunately, the data on working period are processed very insufficiently: besides this general table, only information is given for certain trades on the number of workers by months, sometimes with division by groups, sometimes without such division; division by subgroups is absent for not a single trade. The separation of large establishments would be especially important for this question, since we have the right to presume – both a priori and from data of other researchers of craftsman industry – that working periods for large and small craftsmen are not identical. Furthermore, the table itself on p. 57 appears to have been compiled not without errors or typographical mistakes (for example, in the months: February, August, November; columns 2 and 3 in Group II apparently are mixed up, since the number of workers in the 3rd subgroup is greater than in the 2nd). Even upon correcting these inaccuracies (correction sometimes approximate) this table raises considerable doubt, which makes its use risky. Indeed, examining the data of this table by subgroups, we see that in the 3rd subgroup (Gr. I) the maximum of engaged workers falls in December, amounting to 2,911 workers. Meanwhile, the "Sketch" counts a total of 2,551 workers in the 3rd subgroup. The same holds for the 3rd subgroup of Group II: maximum – 3,221, and actual number of workers – 3,077. On the other hand, for the subgroups the maxima of workers engaged in one of the months is less than the actual number of workers. How to explain this phenomenon? By the fact that information on this question was collected not for all establishments? This is very probable, but the "Sketch" says not a word about it. For the 2nd subgroup of Group II not only is the maximum number of workers (February) greater than the actual number of workers (1,882 against 1,163), but also the average number of workers engaged in one month (i.e., the quotient obtained by dividing the sum of workers engaged in 12 months by 12) is greater than the actual number of workers (1,265 against 1,163)!! The question arises: what number of workers did the registrars consider actual: the average for the year, the average for some period (for example, for winter), or the actual number in one definite month of the year? An examination of data on the monthly number of workers in individual trades does not help resolve all these perplexities. For the majority of those 23 trades for which information is given, the maximum of workers engaged in one of the months of the year is below the actual number of workers. For 2 trades this maximum is greater than the actual number of workers: for copper-working (239 against 233) and blacksmithing (II group – 1,811 against 1,269). For two trades the maximum equals the actual number of workers (rope-making and oil-pressing, II groups).

Under such conditions it proves impossible to use data on monthly distribution of workers for comparison with sums of wages, with actual number of workers, and so forth. We are left only with taking these data in isolation from others, comparing the maxima and minima of workers engaged by months. This is indeed what is done in the "Sketch," but in this comparison individual months are compared. We find it more correct to compare winter and summer: then we can trace how much agriculture distracts workers from the trade. We took the average number of workers engaged in winter (October – March) as the norm and, applying this norm to the number of workers engaged in summer, we obtained the number of summer working months. The sum of winter and summer months gave the number of working months in the year. Let us explain by example. In the 1st subgroup of Group I in six winter months 18,060 workers are engaged; consequently, in one winter month on average (18,060 : 6 =) 3,010 workers are engaged. In summer 12,345 workers are engaged, i.e., the working period in summer constitutes (12,345 : 3,010) 4.1 months. Consequently, the working period in the 1st subgroup of Group I constitutes 10.1 months per year.

We considered this method of processing data both the most correct and most convenient. Most correct – because it is based on comparison of winter and summer months, consequently, on precise determination of how much agriculture distracts workers from the trade. That winter months are taken correctly is confirmed by the fact that precisely from October and precisely through March in both groups the number of workers is above the average for the year. Precisely from September to October the number of workers increases most sharply, precisely from March to April it falls most sharply. Incidentally, the choice of other months would change the conclusions very insignificantly. We consider the method adopted most convenient because it expresses the working period as a precise number, allowing comparison in this respect of groups and subgroups.

Here are the data obtained by this method:

These data lead to the conclusion that the difference in working period between agriculturalists and non-agriculturalists is extremely small: for non-agriculturalists the working period is only 5% longer. The negligibility of this difference raises doubt as to the correctness of the figures. We undertook some calculations and summaries of material scattered throughout the book to verify them and arrived at the following conclusions:

Of 43 trades, information on the monthly distribution of workers is given in the "Sketch" for 23, of which for 12 (13) [191] trades this information is provided by groups, and for 10 it is not. It turns out that for three trades (tar-pitch, indigo, and brick) the number of workers in summer is greater than in winter: in six winter months a total of 1,953 people are engaged across all three of these trades, and in 6 summer months – 4,918 people. The number of agriculturalists in these trades vastly predominates over non-agriculturalists, constituting 85.9% of the total number of workers. Naturally, combining in the general totals by groups these summer, so to speak, trades with the rest was completely incorrect, since this meant combining heterogeneous things and artificially raising the number of summer workers across all trades. To correct the resulting error, there are two means. The first – to subtract data on these three trades from the totals of the "Sketch" for Groups I and II [192]. We obtain a working period for Group I of 9.6 months, for Group II – 10.4 months. Here the difference between both groups is greater, but still very small: 8.3%. The second means to correct the error consists in a summary of data for those 12 trades for which the "Sketch" provides information on monthly distribution of workers in Group I and Group II separately. Such a summary will cover 70% of the total number of craftsmen, and the comparison between Group I and Group II will be more correct. It turned out that according to these 12 trades the working period for Group I equals only 8.9 months, and for Group II – 10.7 months, and for both groups together 9.7 months. Here the working period for non-agriculturalists is 20.2% longer than for agriculturalists. Agriculturalists cease work in summer for 3.1 months, while non-agriculturalists for only 1.3 months. If we take the maximum relation of working periods in Group II and Group I as the norm, then it will turn out that not only differences in gross production of workers of Groups I and II or in the net profitability of their establishments, but even differences in wages of hired workers between agriculturalists and non-agriculturalists cannot be explained by difference in working periods. Consequently, the conclusion made above that connection with the land lowers the wages of craftsmen remains in full force.

Therefore, it must be recognized as an error the opinion of the "Sketch" compilers, who wish to explain the difference in wages between agriculturalists and non-agriculturalists by the difference in working periods. Their error arose from the fact that they did not attempt to express the differences in working periods by precise figures, and therefore fell into delusion. For example, on p. 106 of the "Sketch" it is stated that the difference in wages of furrier-agriculturalists and furrier-non-agriculturalists "is determined chiefly by the number of working days devoted to the trade." Meanwhile the incomes of non-agriculturalists exceed the incomes of agriculturalists in this trade by 2–4 times (per family worker in the 1st subgroup 65 and 280 rubles; in the 2nd – 27 and 62 rubles), while the working period for non-agriculturalists is longer by at most 28.7% (8.5 months against 6.6).

The fact of wage reduction due to connection with the land could not escape the notice of the "Sketch" compilers either, who, however, expressed it in the usual Populist formula about the "advantage" of the craftsman form over the capitalist: "by combining agriculture with trade, the craftsman… can sell his products cheaper than factory products" (p. 4), can, in other words, be content with lower wages. But what is the "advantage" of connection with the land, if the market has already so thoroughly dominated all production of the country that it factors in this connection, lowering the wages of the craftsman-agriculturist? if capital knows how to use this "connection" for greater pressure on the craftsman-agriculturist, less capable of self-defense, of choosing another owner, another buyer, another occupation? The reduction of wages (and of industrial wages generally) in the presence of a small plot of land at the disposal of the worker (and small industrialist) is a phenomenon common to all capitalist countries, a phenomenon well-known to all entrepreneurs, who long ago evaluated the tremendous "advantages" of workers tied to the land. Only on the rotten West do things directly call them by their name, while with us the reduction of wages, the reduction of living standards of the working people, the delay in introducing machines, the strengthening of all manner of bondage are called the "advantage" of "popular production" "combining agriculture with trade"…

In conclusion of the review of data from the craftsman census of 1894/95 on the working period, it is impossible not again to express regret concerning the incomplete processing of the obtained data and not to wish that this failure should not discourage other researchers of this interesting question. The method of investigation – determination of monthly distribution of labor force – cannot but be recognized as chosen very successfully. Above we have presented data on the working period by groups and subgroups. The data by groups we were able to verify somewhat further. The data by subgroups are completely unverifiable, since the book contains absolutely no information on the difference in working period by different subgroups. Therefore, in setting forth these data, we make the caveat that we cannot vouch for their complete reliability, and if we make further conclusions, we do so only in order to pose the question and draw the attention of researchers to it. The most important conclusion is that the smallest difference in working periods between Groups I and II turns out to be in the 1st subgroup (only 1%: 10.1 and 10.0 months), i.e., the most prosperous craftsmen and the largest and most solvent agriculturalists are least of all drawn away from agriculture. The greatest difference is among artisans (2nd subgroup: 9.5 and 10.4 months), i.e., among the industrialists least affected by commodity economy and middle agriculturalists. It appears that among prosperous agriculturalists the small distraction from agriculture depends either on larger composition of their families, or on greater exploitation of hired labor in the trade, or on their hiring of agricultural workers, and that the greatest distraction of artisans from agriculture stands in connection with the least decomposition of them as agriculturalists, with the greatest preservation of patriarchal relations and direct work for consumer-agriculturalists, who curtail their orders in summer [193].

"Connection with agriculture," according to census data, is reflected extremely distinctly in the literacy of craftsmen; – unfortunately, the literacy of hired workers was not investigated. It turns out that the non-agricultural population [194] is significantly more literate than the agricultural, and this relationship is observed without exception in all subgroups and for both men and women. Here in full [195] the census data on this question in percentage relations (p. 62):

It is interesting to note that in the non-agricultural population literacy spreads much more rapidly among women than among men. The percentage of literate men in Group II is 1½–2 times greater than in Group I, while the percentage of literate women is 2½–5¾ times.

Summing up the conclusions which the craftsman census of 1894/95 gave on "agriculture in connection with trade," we can state that connection with agriculture:

1) retards the most backward forms of industry and impedes economic development;

2) lowers the wages and incomes of craftsmen, so that the most secure subgroups of agriculturist-owners receive, in general and on average, less than the worst-placed subgroups of hired workers among non-agriculturalists, not to mention non-agriculturalist-owners. Even compared with hired workers in Group I, owners of this same group receive very low incomes, exceeding only very slightly the wages of hired workers, and sometimes even falling below them;

3) impedes the cultural development of the population, which has a lower level of needs and lags far behind non-agriculturalists in literacy.

These conclusions will be useful to us below, in evaluating the Populist program of industrial policy.

4) Among craftsmen-agriculturalists, decomposition is observed, parallel to the decomposition of industrialists. Moreover, the highest (in terms of security) categories of agriculturalists represent the pure type of peasant bourgeoisie, basing their economy on the hiring of rural farm-laborers and day-laborers.

5) The working period among agriculturalists is shorter than among non-agriculturalists, but this difference is very small (5%–20%).